In the light of global militarisation, eroding multilateralism, ever more wars, and autocracy, peace remains a central guiding principle in policymaking and collective action.
“German foreign policy is a policy of peace.” Since the end of World War II, this paradigm has guided Germany’s role in the world. It has shaped the country’s self-image, the way the government conducts international relations, and the way society lives together. Peace policy regards conflicts as part of everyday life in human and international relations. They are dealt with peacefully and resolved politically, not through violence – as long as the “primacy of politics” applies. This is how security and peace are created.
Both, not instead of each other: peace and security
True peace requires security – but security alone does not create peace. Historically speaking, the world experienced a relatively secure period for 20 years following the Cold War. This went hand in hand with disarmament.
At the same time, fear and mistrust characterises coexistence in many parts of the world. Specifically, fear for one’s own life and that of one’s loved ones, mistrust of being betrayed, and uncertainty about one’s own future prevail where criminal violence dominates – as in Mexico or South Africa – and dictators oppress people – as in Myanmar, Rwanda, or Russia. In such contexts, there is not much peace, and there is often a lack of sustainable cohesion. This makes societies less resilient to external shocks.
New and interconnected threats are not only creating insecurity worldwide. They also mean uncertainty. The consequences of war, natural disasters caused by global warming, economic uncertainty due to trade wars, rising social inequality, and pandemics are shaping the everyday lives of people around the world. Even in Germany, which has enjoyed decades of security, the situation has changed dramatically. Russia’s war against Ukraine has made the threats and insecurity more tangible in Europe. The nature of warfare is also changing. Hybrid threats such as targeted disinformation to divide societies or drone attacks – often controlled by governments – originate in cyberspace and attack physical infrastructure and people in their real lives. The simultaneity of these different yet interlinked problems creates a complexity that is difficult for individuals to grasp.
Dealing with this complexity of threats requires a diverse mix of civic and military approaches. However, one seems to come at the expense of the other in current public debates and decision-making.
Civilian crisis prevention, crisis management, and peacebuilding have long been the hallmarks of German peace policy abroad. As a result, Germany has become the largest international donor of civilian crisis prevention. On the multilateral stage, Germany stands for a rules-based international order that resolves conflicts through cooperation. These foundations of peace policy have given rise to a diverse landscape of civic and governmental organisations that contribute to peace in Germany and around the world.
However, now defence spending is increasing, while civic crisis prevention, conflict management, and peacebuilding are experiencing financial cuts. Old and outdated patterns of argumentation are also resurfacing, such as security versus peace or military versus civil society. These simple patterns of thinking facilitate public communication and provide people with orientation. However, they prevent Germany’s self-image in terms of peace policy from developing further.
Win-win: becoming more defensible and remaining capable of peace
These radical developments require Germany to reform its international role at a rapid pace and find a new self-image. Currently, strong security rhetoric and debates about peace are becoming increasingly polarised. Developing a new self-image for Germany and its actions abroad means linking both security policy requirements and peace policy fundamentals. There are points of reference for doing so in the current political debate on “integrated security”.
A win-win strategy would build on the proven to create something new. German policy can rely on a variety of organisations and instruments that contribute to peace in Germany and the world through civilian means. But when political decision-makers threaten to pull the rug out from under civilian crisis prevention and peace promotion by cutting funds, they jeopardise sustainable security.
An “integrated approach” would unite international development cooperation, diplomacy, and military commitment to peace and security. However, as state officials as well as civil society organisations have pointed out, these integrated approaches only work, if both the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the Federal Foreign Office (AA) have joint goals and funds to implement this together.
At the same time, the state alone cannot create security or peace. The current public focus on defence policy suggests that it is primarily the state’s responsibility to ensure security. However, in view of the complex threats we face, both the state and civil society are needed to guarantee peace and security – for example through public safety education in schools, social programmes, and dialogue initiatives.
Strategic communication by the government is essential to create peace. There are no easy solutions to current crises, and certainly no guarantee that political approaches will be successful. Rather, flexible political strategies are needed. On the other hand, the population must accept that politics can also fail and that new approaches must be tried again and again. This requires both internal resilience as well as a reflection on Germany’s external influence.
German foreign policy is still peace policy. The ongoing debates on integrated security are an opportunity to further develop integrated approaches that go further to also include civilian crisis prevention and peacebuilding as means to guarantee security as well. This way, peace remains an integral part of German security policy – both internally and externally.
